With 13 months remaining before general elections in Myanmar, defending freedom of expression and information is more critical than ever. Like all transitional processes, it's a complex, contradictory and confusing situation. Here's a snapshot of what ARTICLE 19's office in Yangon has been seeing on:

"Discipline" is the word of the moment in Myanmar, something that the people have lived and breathed since 1962. An end to decades of political, civil, social, economic and cultural discipline is fearful to many.

The nexus between freedom and discipline permeates every issue and frames every solution. Civil society wants new laws to protect new freedoms; the government wants new laws to provide "discipline".

Civil society is rapidly realising that the drive to change out-dated legislation is not necessarily in their best interests. Change slows as a result.

And of course, civil society often urges "discipline" itself – many look to the growing conflicts with the Muslim community, but also in any conversation around women, the need for disciplined freedom is repeated.

(Watch this space for more on our project focused on women and freedom of expression in Myanmar.)

GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT

It's rare that human rights defenders find governments open to engagement, and rarer still to have a positive word to say on the Myanmar government. Perhaps the government are simply playing the game in order to placate foreign interests, perhaps such interests have told them to do so in order to make money. Whatever the reason, so far the government are comparatively accessible.

This is not to say that the old ways have gone, but who would have thought that five years after the Saffron Revolution, ministers would be parroting "international standards" so fluently? (Okay, so they clearly don't know what the standards are, but that's not the point.)

From now until the elections next year, what limited mandate this government has will largely and rapidly disappear, and any new laws seem unlikely.

All eyes in Myanmar are on the Constitution and whether the opposition parties will change two articles that cover 1) the possibility of constitutional amendment, and 2) whether Aung San Suu Kyi can be a presidential candidate (the constitution currently rules her candidacy out on the grounds that her deceased husband was a foreigner).

Individuals and groups nationwide have written submission but the committee is so opaque, nobody even knows what they are doing or what submissions came in.

All the committee has said publicly is that many people have written advising not to change anything. Apparently last week they concluded their analysis, but nothing has been made public.

PARLIAMENTARY GAMES

The lack of transparency is obvious across parliament. Most decisions are made by consensus rather than by open political debate, so understanding which party is taking what position is hard to establish.

Leaders are beginning to emerge in parliament on different issues, but not necessarily with open support.

A case in point was an MP who last week put before parliament an amendment to the horrendous colonial Official Secrets Act, only to be the only person standing when a vote was called on whether to proceed.

The lack of transparency and access feeds the rumour mill. Last week one media outlet was slapped down after reporting that the National League for Democracy may select parliamentary speaker -and former general- Shwe Mann as president. Strange though this rumour sounds, the publisher is well respected.

There are also calls for parliament and the executive to kick out the head of the Election Commission, a man who has overseen a system, process and practice that has done little to convince the world that free and fair elections are possible in June country.

BROADCASTING REFORM

Two bills analysed by ARTICLE 19 and that fail international standards are before parliament on regulating broadcasting and public service media. The draft laws will do little to enable competition or serve the public(s) interest. The question is whether they will get beyond the committee stages in the run up to an election.

Right now, the only tv and radio channels are government-controlled and it's highly unlikely that this government will adopt the broadcasting law and bylaws before next years general election -they've seen the rocketing criticism from the print media, they're not going to jump to give out licences to the same independent voices so that they can speak directly in peoples homes.

Similarly it's unlikely that the public service media bill will get much further, although the chances are probably higher. Word is that the Ministry of Information knows that it shouldn't exist in a real democracy and is looking to silently morph into such a public service institution.

There are also some smaller less important laws circling around, such as on advertising and film. The debacle over adopting two media laws this year has left civil society very cautious about whether these laws are for protecting freedom of expression, or enforcing discipline. The Ministry feels bruised too by the public reaction.

THE PRESS COUNCIL AND THE COMPLAINTS MECHANISM

The Interim Press Council has got much of the formal policy ready and is likely to become a permanent council at the end of 2014. The IPC has been criticised from all sides - the government wants more discipline and many in the media believe it is illegitimate, having been created by the Ministry of Information rather than journalists themselves.

The IPC hasn't yet had its bylaws adopted by the president (yes, the executive is deciding how the press will be managed!). The bylaws will create a complaints mechanism for members of the public to go to if they believe a media house has broken the IPC's Code of Conduct.

In the absence of bylaws, the IPC has been informally accepting applications in order to mediate, mostly through time consuming face-to-face meetings. Unsurprising therefore that they've only received 82 complaints so far.

The devil is in the detail of course, as three quarters of the complaints have not come from individuals trying to protect their rights, but rather from the Ministry of Information itself. The ministry's complaints have been largely banal, with the majority being about either alcohol and tobacco advertising or the state of women's (un)dress.

Worse, some civil society groups have privately alleged that when they've complained about more critical issues, such as incitement to discrimination and hostility (violations of IPC Code of Conduct 10.1-3), the IPC has remained silent.

Just this week three people were sentenced to prison under article 18 for planting mangrove trees in an area of environmental degradation. Apparently the local police and courts regard rehabilitating natural fora to be a criminal offence. One of the people was charged under Article 18 three times for encouraging others in the area to plant trees too. (See ARTICLE 19's review of the problems in the newly amended assembly law.)

JUDICIAL CHANGE

Lawyers are adjusting to their newfound role as public advocates, moving from a system in which they facilitated bribes to, at the bare minimum, a system where they ignore the rampant bribes changing hands.

Some of the best lawyers are grappling with changing the law, trying to expand the court's interest and understanding of how a rule of law system should work. There are some judges too that seem to be beginning to think more about the value of their independence from the executive- in the last few months alone, the Supreme Court has written to the president explaining how important it is to separate the powers.

Other lawyers are trying to force the hand of the government. This has resulted in criticism from some that by doing so, they're sacrificing the interests of their clients at the alter of the interests of the people in the long term.

We're not so sure it's that clear cut. In a recent case of 50 journalists being arrested for protesting at the heavy sentence handed to their colleagues, the journalist unions set out to get them freed (which worked) but then faced criticisms from the journalists themselves who wanted to go to prison in order to shine a light on the inadequacy of the law itself.

[CPJ urges the U.S.] government to consider reinstating economic and financial sanctions and freezing bilateral commercial, diplomatic and strategic initiatives, including military-to-military exchanges. We urge you to use U.S. influence to see that justice is served for slain journalist Aung Kyaw Naing, all jailed journalists are released unconditionally, and sweeping legal reforms that protect the press are implemented.

"President Obama should urge the leaders of Myanmar to reform the constitution drafted by the military to allow Aung San Suu Kyi, by far the most important opposition leader, to be a candidate for president," said David J. Kramer, president of Freedom House. "Having an election that is free, fair and credible means undoing requirements that actually undermine the legitimacy of elections and thus of the country – requirements clearly designed to prevent Suu Kyi from challenging those favored by the military."

Restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and assembly persist, amid the government's failure to contend with the range of rights-abusing laws that have been long used to criminalize free speech and prosecute dissidents.As part of the military's "clearance operations" in northern Rakhine State, where thousands of Rohingya Muslims face rampant and systemic human rights violations, the authorities denied independent journalists access to the region since early October.

An officer of the Myanmar army recently filed a criminal complaint against two journalists for allegedly sowing disunity among the military. Even though mediation by the Press Council caused the military to withdraw the case, this incident demonstrates how the military continues to throw its weight to get back at what it perceives as negative publicity.

The Broadcasting Law, approved in August, enabled private companies to enter the broadcast market for the first time. However, it maintains presidential control over the broadcasting sector, and the Broadcasting Council it established is susceptible to political interference.

The report surveys the rocky landscape for media and public discourse since the ruling military junta lifted the curtain on the southeast Asian nation in 2012 after five decades of isolation from the modern world.

As the election looms for later this year, incidents in 2014 and in early 2015 involving the press raises serious questions on the genuineness of media freedom in Burma. The situation is alarming as the state seems to have heaped all the faults and fines on the media in the past year, which has seen a media worker being killed in October on the pretext of national security. International assistance has poured into the country to develop the media aimed at lifting and sustaining the state of media freedom. However, a viable press freedom environment seems unlikely to materialise in Burma before the end of this administration.

There is some skepticism about how much influence Burma's youth movement can assert in terms of political change. Still, activists have benefited from greater access to the Internet, which has brought a new side to the online community after decades of heavy censorship

Burma is at a crossroads. The period of transition since 2010 has opened up the space for freedom of expression to an extent unpredicted by even the most optimistic in the country. Yet this space is highly contingent on a number of volatile factors.

The media landscape in Burma is more open than ever, as President Thein Sein releases imprisoned journalists and abolishes the former censorship regime. But many threats and obstacles to truly unfettered reporting remain, including restrictive laws held over from the previous military regime. The wider government’s commitment to a more open reporting environment is in doubt.

More from Free Expression & the Law

Laws passed since Vladimir Putin's return to the presidency in May 2012 have dramatically strengthened the Russian authorities’ control over the flow of information online and offline. Much of this crackdown has been fuelled by Russia’s foreign policy, in particular its role in the conflict in neighbouring Ukraine and its armed intervention in Syria.

The report is based on the study of Bahraini laws and legislation related to the prosecution of civilians in military courts and shows the compatibility of Bahraini laws with the International Bill and international laws.

Civil society leaders in Egypt are urging the U.S. government to continue to condition and withhold military aid to Egypt until the Egyptian government makes meaningful reforms to its human rights practices.

BCHR analyses how the Bahraini judiciary uses the language of 'anti-terrorism' law to justify suppressing dissent. They also do a comparative study of the relevant local and international anti-terror legislation, and the extent to which Bahrain is in line with international law, international conventions and human rights treaties.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) accuses the Eritrean government of a complete denial of reality in its first-ever report to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and announces that it has submitted an alternative "shadow report" with a much darker assessment of the state of press freedom in Eritrea.

The general trend over the past 10 years has been bleak, with an overall negative trajectory for press freedom. The major turning point was the election of Xi Jinping as General Secretary of the Communist Party of China in 2012 and President of China in 2013.

In 2014, Cameroon enacted a broad anti-terror law as part of its effort to counter the extremist group Boko Haram, but authorities are using it to arrest and threaten local journalists who report on the militants or unrest in the country’s English-speaking regions.

Since 2013, law enforcement authorities in Bangladesh have illegally detained scores of opposition activists and held them in secret without producing them before courts, as the law requires. In most cases, those arrested remain in custody for weeks or months before being formally arrested or released. Others however are killed in so-called armed exchanges, and many remain “disappeared.”

This study examines the existence of criminal defamation and insult laws in the territory of the 57 participating States of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). In doing so, it offers a broad, comparative overview of the compliance of OSCE participating States’ legislation with international standards and best practices in the field of defamation law and freedom of expression.

READ AND DOWNLOADThis study analyses current trends in civil defamation and privacy cases in Hungary involving the media and summarises key challenges for freedom of the press and expression. Written by Hungarian media lawyer Bea Bodrogi, the study examined 250 court decisions related to civil protection of 'personality rights', an area in Hungarian law that includes defamation, privacy and personal image.

Freedom Forum has issued a review of Nepal's National Mass Communications Policy 2016. Among others, FF says the policy fails to articulate constitutional provisions relating to freedom of expression and mass communication. The policy, they said, also seems to promote centralided regulation, instead of self-regulation.

The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) in 2016 maintained its control over all public affairs and punished those who challenged its monopoly on power. Authorities restricted basic rights, including freedom of speech, opinion, association, and assembly. All religious groups had to register with the government and operate under surveillance. Bloggers and activists faced daily police harassment and intimidation, and were subject to arbitrary house arrest, restricted movement, and physical assaults.

Malaysia's human rights situation continued to deteriorate in 2016, with human rights defenders, activists, political opposition figures, and journalists facing harassment and politically motivated prosecution. Those criticising the administration of Prime Minister Najib Razak or commenting on the government's handling of the 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) corruption scandal have been particular targets.

Authorities continue to use sedition and criminal defamation laws to prosecute citizens who criticise government officials or oppose state policies. In a blow to free speech, the government in 2016 argued before the Supreme Court in favour of retaining criminal penalties for defamation. The court upheld the law.

After already cracking down on freedom of information in recent years, President Erdoğan has taken advantage of the abortive coup d’état and the state of emergency in effect since 20 July to silence many more of his media critics, not only Gülen movement media and journalists but also, to a lesser extent, Kurdish, secularist and left-wing media.

IFEX publishes original and member-produced free expression news and reports. Some member content has been edited by IFEX. We invite you to contact [email protected] to request permission to reproduce or republish in whole or in part content from this site.

Get more stories like this

Sign up for our newsletters and get the most important free expression news delivered to your inbox.